The Drag Queen Story Hour account tweeted yesterday that “Queer joy is for all ages.” Once I had recovered from a minor injury sustained from rolling my eyes so far back in my head, I thought I would formulate a bit of a response. The question is, “what’s wrong with saying that kids can be queer, gay, bi, trans, anything they want, what’s wrong with affirming and celebrating that?”
David Paisley, who recently abandoned his High Court libel action against me for calling him a paedophile enabler (amongst other things), has tweeted several times about LGBTQIAP+ children. I use his tweets to illustrate why any call to “affirm,” or “celebrate” children as having or expressing sexualities is, in and of itself, enabling to child molesters.
A (hopefully fictional) bisexual 12 Year Old With a Dating History
A twitter user tweeted “friends 11 year old daughter (P7) after Stonewall sex ed, comes home saying one of her friends is pan sexual another thinks she’s a boy and she’s not sure what she is. Primary school!! Breaks my heart.”
David Paisley responded:
“The correct response when your 11 year old comes home saying they learned about LGBT+ people and they’re “not sure” what they are is to say “that’s nice dear, have you done your maths?” The reason it “breaks your heart” is that you think being LGBT+ is lesser than cis heterosexuality.
My friend’s son came home from school at 12 and said he had a boyfriend, his mum was more curious what happened to his girlfriend, who she quite liked. He’s been “bi” for quite a while and it’s a non-issue. Difference from the above being that friend’s son actually exists.”
In addition to the sex education issue discussed in a previous article, Paisley’s tweet tells a story about a twelve-year-old
a. Previously had a girlfriend
b. Now has a boyfriend
c. Has “been bi for quite a while.”
d. When the boyfriend appeared, the boy’s mum was “more curious” about what happened to his previous “girlfriend” who she “quite liked.”
These statements, about a twelve-year-old child, are concerning.[1] It is against the law to sexually kiss a twelve-year-old child. Children, who have not gone through adolescence and who have no adult genitalia or adult sex hormones, cannot be said to be bisexual or gay or straight. They are just children. Children of twelve may have innocent “boyfriends” or “girlfriends” (very rarely of the same sex). They may hold hands and hang out. It is a follow on from younger children playing “mummies and daddies,” or announcing that they are going to “marry mummy” when they get older.
There is no conclusion regarding the child’s future adult sexuality that can be drawn from the child engaging in this type of relationship. The child cannot be said to have “been bi for quite a while.” These are just friendships.
Children of twelve may be engaging in sexualised activities with others (i.e. being sexually abused). These relationships are always inappropriate. A child who is being abused cannot be understood to be expressing an adult sexual identity. They are being victimised, not engaging in anything they can consent to.
In fact, there is no type of relationship or activity that can be undertaken by a twelve-year-old and nothing that can be done to them that can define them as having an adult sexuality, or a sexuality of any kind. They are children. Adults may look back on intense childhood friendships or undefined feelings about a TV star and think “I knew when I was twelve.” I can still remember the first butch lesbian I met and I was only ten or so. I look back at that as the “seeds” of my sexuality. But this is very different from an adult looking back at the child in front of them, today, and claiming or even affirming that “this child is bisexual.” The former is a lesbian adult recalling her own history. The latter is a matter of grave concern.
Paisley’s tweet about a twelve-year-old-child states that the child is capable of expressing a sexuality and has a dating history, involving an ex-girlfriend and a current boyfriend. This child, we should remember, is probably prepubescent, especially as he is a boy, and we would hope, has not yet been sexually kissed. (It is illegal in the UK to sexually kiss a twelve year old child). All children will grow up to be straight, bi, gay or whatever, and there is a strong argument to be made that sexual orientation is innate, or mostly innate. But at twelve, it is not possible for the child or anybody else to know.
It might help to think of sexuality as a hardware/software issue. Adults have the hardware to experience sexual desire (developed sex organs, sensory receptors, hormones etc). They also have the software - the desire to use that adult hardware to do particular things with particular individual(s). A child lacks both the hardware and the software to experience or understand sexual desire. An adolescent is only in the process of developing the hardware and the software. It simply doesn’t make sense to say that a twelve year old child “is” lesbian, gay, bisexual or whatever, when they don’t have either the hardware or the software to be anything at all.
Paisley’s tweet breaks down necessary boundaries around how we talk about children and sex. If children and sexuality are being discussed in the same sentence, then the topic should be about sexual offences or maintaining appropriate boundaries, or other appropriate topics, not “bisexuality” and the child’s dating history.
The suggestion that children of twelve can have and express adult sexualities, or that they can have dating histories, is deeply concerning. It places adult concepts about sexuality onto children, suggesting that they are capable of identity defining sexual desire before they have even hit puberty. It holds the door open to arguments about lowering the age of consent. It is in and of itself, paedophile enabling. To those of us concerned with the maintenance of boundaries and the protection of children, it is a red flag.
I make no statement about the reasons that a person might wield such a flag so enthusiastically. There are many possible explanations. An individual may have been abused themselves, or simply be unaware of the importance of safeguarding. They may simply be telling stories - the twelve year old may not exist at all and the whole thing may be made up for internet points. But whatever the explanation, there is no escaping the fact that ascribing adult sexualities to children is directly paedophile enabling.
In support of LGBTQIAP+ children
These tweets are not an isolated slip of the tongue. Paisley really believes in the concept of children being capable of having adult sexualities. In these tweets, from Paisley’s organisation “LGBT+ Glitterati,” he reiterated his view that children can be “LGBTQIAP+” and encouraged donations to Stonewall, and asked parents to tweet their support for their LGBTQIAP+ children.
“It is 8.23am and a PERFECT time to donate to @stonewalluk and support the work they do to protect LGBTQIAP+ people of all ages in the UK. Just a reminder.”
“Post your own #OutAndProudParentsDay post if you are an LGBTQIAP+ parent or the parent of an LGBTQIAP+ child! We love to see it.”
This is not even a tweet about teenagers. Paisley is talking about children “of all ages” having settled identities as lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, and so on. To reiterate, it is against the law in the United Kingdom to sexually kiss a child. Children do not have adult sexualities and are not capable of consenting to anything that has implications for their adult sexuality. Any sexual behaviour they participate in is, by definition, victimising of them. Children cannot be lesbian, gay, or bisexual. They can’t be heterosexual either.
Queer Children
The inclusion of Q for “queer” in Paisley’s tweet is an additional red flag when it relates to children. The figure of the “queer child” is a central figure in pro-paedophilic academic discourse.[2]
I include two definitions from Breslow, defining the “queer” child.
a. “The figure of the queer child is … the child who displays an interest in sex generally, in same sex erotic attachments, or in cross generational attachments.”
b. “The queering that ‘queer’ does to the child is one of resisting the child’s alleged asexuality and heterosexuality; allowing for the child’s pleasures, desires and perversities.”[3]
Those of us who are cognizant of issues around safeguarding and child sexual abuse will recognise immediately that the child being described by Breslow is not “queer,” but a victim of sexual abuse. The “A” is for “asexual.” Seeing as no children can have adult sexual identities or desires, all children should fall into this category. Suggesting that children not having sexual desires means that they fall into some subcategory of children does the work of reinforcing the idea that some children do have sexual desires.
Paisley may simply have tweeted all the letters he could think of and, without thinking, applied them to children without realising that calling children “queer” or “asexual” is standard pro paedophilic discourse. He may not understand the safeguarding implications of what he is writing. He may simply be tweeting support for a beleaguered organisation. I make no assessment of his intentions in tweeting this. It is not necessary to make an assessment of his intent to conclude that allowing for the existence of “queer” and “asexual” children is directly paedophile enabling.
This is because they imply that children are capable of engaging in and understanding the meaning of activities which will allow them to draw conclusions about their sexuality. They cannot, and to argue that they can is to argue that children can understand and express adult sexuality. If they can do this, there is no logical argument that children cannot also consent to sex. This is, amongst other things, directly paedophile enabling.
Parental affirmation
Parents “affirming” and tweeting out in support of their “LGBTQIAP+” child is damaging to those children, who need to be given time and space to grow into themselves and figure themselves out, not be affirmed and shoved into the public square in an expression of parental virtue signalling. What if the parent “affirms” the child, shoves them into the public square, writes a book, gets a Netflix deal and so on, and the child decides they are a “cis[4] heterosexual” instead?
To involve developing children in the public square in this way interferes with their normal development and pushes them down a particular path, instead of allowing them to grow and explore on their own and work out who they are in their own time, their own space and their own way. This is never in the interest of the child.
Parents who advertise themselves as having an “LGBTQIAP+” child also advertise themselves as lacking boundaries around their children. Predatory men seek out families with this kind of boundary violation because they are easy targets for grooming and sexual abuse. I am not stating that Paisley is intentionally asking families to advertise their children as vulnerable to sexual predation; rather, I am stating that whatever his intention, his tweet normalises this harmful practice.
A child should not be given validation or praise for expressing an adult sexual orientation. Cheering on a child for expressing an adult sexual orientation is what groomers do. Children are not capable of occupying adult identities and inhabiting adult sexualities and identities. Public communications that imply that they are paedophile enabling.
If my child, at twelve, told me that they were bisexual, or any kind of anything “sexual,” I would have a few follow up questions, and if there were no matters of concern, I would say, “I’m glad you can come to me about that stuff, and I’m happy however you turn out, but you’re not anything yet. You’re a kid. Leave all that till you’re older.” Other parents and care givers may have a different response, depending on the age of the child, and their knowledge of the child’s personality and past experiences.
An edict that parents should affirm and celebrate a child’s statement about their gender or sexuality without question is harmful to children. At twelve, no child has a clue who they really are, let alone who they will end up being after they’ve gone through adolescence. Children should be left alone to explore their feelings through adolescence, and not “affirmed,” and especially not affirmed and then shoved into the public eye by their parents.
I have never stated that Paisley is a paedophile or has a sexual interest in children. I have no evidence regarding that either way. I did, however, state that Paisley’s words are paedophile enabling, whatever his intentions. I restate it here. To say that children have settled adult sexualities and dating histories, to say that some children are “queer” and others are “asexual,” and to ask adults to effectively “affirm” these identities in the public square, is directly paedophile enabling.
It boggles my brain that this man reported me to the police and took a libel action against me for saying so.
[1] Harmful sexual behaviour framework: an evidence-informed operational framework for children and young people displaying harmful sexual behaviours (nspcc.org.uk)
[2] Harmful to Minors: The Academy's Sex Abuse Problem (substack.com)
[3] Mermaids trustee quits after paedophile aid group speech emerges (pinknews.co.uk)
[4] “Cis” is a term which means “not trans.” Many people, myself included, regard it as a slur.
Do you think Paisley's regretting coming after you yet?
Or will it take a few more articles?
I'm loving your demolition job.
Another excellent piece, thank you Ceri. I would love to see a feature written by you for the Times, about your ordeal and these thoughts about boundaries that you express so well. Are you in contact with Janice Turner or Hadley Freeman?